<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
 <rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
   <title>New Statesman - <![CDATA[Sean O'Casey]]></title>
   <link>http://www.newstatesman.com/writers/sean_o'casey</link>
 
  <description><![CDATA[]]></description> 
   <language>en</language>



				
  <item>
   <title><![CDATA[A review - The thing that counts]]></title>
   <link>http://www.newstatesman.com/200604240047</link>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstatesman.com/200604240047</guid>
   <pubDate>Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
   <dc:creator>Sean O'Casey</dc:creator>
  
  <description><![CDATA[<p><em><strong>Taken from the <em>New Statesman</em> archive, 9 February 1935.</strong>



To be fair to O’Casey, his review of the published text of the play appeared in the books (or “Current Literature”) pages, and not in “Plays and Pictures”. But he was attacking a sacred cow. Greenwood’s 

novel of Love on the Dole, recounting Sally Hardcastle’s hard life and tough choices in Depression-era Salford, was already established as — and would continue to be for many years — a popular favourite. And, despite O’Casey’s strictures, the play, with Wendy Hiller in the lead role, went on to success both in the West End and on Broadway. - Brian Cathcart</em></p>

]]></description>
 </item>
    </channel>
</rss>
